1. health and fitness
2. therapy

Hepat Mon. 2015 May; 15(5): e27181.
DOI: 10.5812/hepatmon.15(5)2015.27181
Review Article
Published online 2015 May 23.
A Comprehensive Long-Term Prognosis of Chronic Hepatitis C Patients With
Antiviral Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Studies From 2008 to 2014
1
1
Ya Wen ; Yi Xiang Zheng ; De Ming Tan
1,*
1Viral Hepatitis Key Laboratary, Department of Infectious Disease, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University; Changsha, China
*Corresponding Author: De Ming Tan, Viral Hepatitis Key Laboratary, Department of Infectious Disease, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. Tel: +86-13958868582,
Fax: +86-073189753766, E-mail: dmt2008@yahoo.com.cn
Received: January 20, 2015; Revised: March 1, 2015; Accepted: March 21, 2015
Context: Attaining a sustained virological response with antiviral therapy is a sign of clinical cure for chronic hepatitis C patients. The aim
of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the long-term efficiency and outcome of antiviral therapy in patients with hepatitis C who attained a
sustained virological response.
Evidence Acquisition: A literature search was performed on published articles between January 2008 and February 2014. Patients with
Hepatitis C who received interferon with or without ribavirin therapy were enrolled. Relative risks were estimated using either fixed or
random effect models.
Results: Patients who attained sustained virological response had a less risk (85%) for all-cause mortality and about 63% reduced risk of
hepatocellular carcinoma incidence than those who did not achieve sustained virological response. Based on deeply analysis, the stage of
liver fibrosis was a risk factor at baseline for the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Conclusions: Sustained virological response can reduce all-cause mortality and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma of patients
with hepatitis C. Advanced liver fibrosis is still a risk factor for the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma, in spite of hepatitis C patients
attained a sustained virological response.
Keywords: Chronic Hepatitis C; Meta-Analysis; Antiviral Therapy
1. Context
Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is one of the most important viral infections, which affects more than 185 million people worldwide, accounting for approximately
3% of the world population and leading to 499000
deaths annually (1). Almost 30% of patients with HCV
develop cirrhosis annually and at high risk of liver failure and hepatocellular cancer (HCC) (2, 3). Since HCV
discovered in 1989 (4), promising milestones had been
achieved in treating HCV infection, especially interferon (IFN) therapy. Achieving a sustained virological
response (SVR) is an indicator of successful therapy for
HCV infection (5, 6). SVR means undetection of HCV in
the blood for at least six months after the completion
of anti-HCV therapy using high sensitive real-time polymerase chain reaction. Although the DAA (direct acting antivirals) showed a bright prospect for curing the
CHC, the standard therapy, interferon combined ribavirin, is still widely used in developing countries with
most CHC patients. With the standard therapy, SVR rate
might be different with different conditions or factors,
while some areas and patients could achieve very high
rates (7, 8). Some predictors were found to indicate SVR
possibility for patients; for example, interleukin-28b
gene polymorphisms play a quiet role to predict treatment response (9, 10). SVR predictors in the standard
therapy had been deeply investigated; however, longtime outcome of SVR still needs to be further studied.
Patients achieved SVR had improvements in liver histology and low risk of HCC and liver-related mortality
(11, 12). However, Bisceglie et al. suggested no change in
the incidence of HCC in patients with advanced fibrosis
and persistent viremia who achieved SVR (13). Considering the need for clinical evidence and inconsistent
results from relevant studies, the present meta-analysis
was designed to pool the currently available data to
determine the benefit of SVR for prognosis of patients
infected with HCV and baseline factors.
2. Evidence Acquisition
A comprehensive search was conducted for studies
published between January 1, 2008 and February 30,
2014. The search was conducted in the databases including Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, OVID, MEDLINE,
PUBMED and Google Scholar using the following terms;
Copyright © 2015, Kowsar Corp. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original
work is properly cited.
Wen Y et al.
Interferon (IFN) or Peginterferon (PEG-IFN), ribavirin
(RBV), Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) or Hepatitis C virus (HCV)
and (Prognosis).
2.1. Selection Criteria
Case-control studies and cohort studies were included
if they were published in English and used therapies of
Peg-IFN/IFN with or without RBV and SVR as a primary
or secondary endpoint. The patients who received complete treatment course with no matter of whether they
attained SVR or non-SVR for all HCV genotypes included
in this meta-analysis. Studies presenting information
exclusively about patients undergoing liver transplant,
other hepatitis, acute HCV, decompensated cirrhosis with
HCC, autoimmune liver disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease (NAFLD), alcoholic fatty liver disease (AFLD) and
post liver transplant patients, were excluded.
2.2. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
Two authors (YW and YXZ) evaluated each potentially
eligible study independently. If evaluation results were
controversial, a final consensus was reached. Data including publication details, type of study, baseline characteristics of patients, information about the disease, treatment strategy, clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality and
the incidence of HCC), duration of follow-up and evaluation criterion during the follow-ups were extracted.
2.3. Data Analysis
RevMan 5.2 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to perform statistical analysis and meta-analysis. The MantelHaenszel method (M-H) was chosen to pool the studies.
The meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology was performed according to proposed guidelines
by MOOSE group (14). According to meta-analysis inclusion criteria, the following data was extracted from the
literature: 1) patients’ general information including
original number of subjects, author, date and journal
details; 2) study characteristics including the study design, the number of patients enrolled and controls and
control of confounding factors. The values of risk ratios
(RRs) were used to assess the risk estimate for cohort
studies; while, odd ratios (ORs) were provided for casecontrol studies, which were regarded as approximate
RRs in this meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of studies
was tested using the χ2 square test and I2 statistic. If a
significant heterogeneity (the χ2 square test P < 0.10)
was found, the random-effect model was used in the
analysis, and if the heterogeneity was considered to be
not significant (the χ2 square test P ≥ 0.10), the fixedeffect model was used. Studies with substantial heterogeneity (I2≥ 50%) are not suitable for meta-analysis.
In this meta-analysis, the potential risk of HCC and allcause mortality between HCV patients of SVR and non2
SVR was assessed. The combined RR was displayed in
the Forest plot. In deeply analysis, some baseline characteristics of patients before receiving treatment such
as gender, genotype or the stage of liver fibrosis were
assessed in SVR groups.
3. Results
3.1. Literature Search
A total of 1839 relevant publications were initially identified through online searching. Most ineligible studies
were excluded based on information in the title or abstract. The selection process is shown in the flow diagram
in Figure 1. Finally, nine publications met the inclusion
criteria for the meta-analysis of SVR versus Non-SVR and
five studies were included to analysis the baseline characteristics in SVR groups.
Citations identified via Pubmed,
Cochrane library, EMBASE, OVID,
and Medline (n=1839)
Exclusion of irrelevant
articles (n=1809)
Eligible potentially relevant citations
according to title, abstract, and
keywords (n=30)
Among them 6 articles were
excluded
˖Meta-analysis (2)
Studies to be reviewed in detail (n=24)
11 articles excluded:
No published outcome (8)
Have comorbidity (3)
Studies included for
meta-analysis (SVR vs
NO-SVR) (n=9)
Studies included for deeply
meta-analysis (baseline in
SVR ) (n=5)
Figure 1. The Selection Process in the Flow Diagram
3.2. Study Characteristics
According to the aforementioned search results,
nine articles (Table 1) were finally included in the meta-analysis for SVR versus non-SVR, and all of which
were cohort studies. These studies were conducted in
five countries including the United States, Japan, Italy,
France, and China. They were all expected to represent
the prognosis (death and HCC) of patients infected
with HCV and their SVR or non-SVR. Overall, 18837 patients with HCV were followed up after a standard care
of therapy; among them 8226 patients achieved SVR,
while 10611 patients were not and 19 patients died and
29 patients developed HCC. Five studies were included
in deeply meta-analysis for baseline characteristics in
SVR groups (Table 2).
Hepat Mon. 2015;15(5):e27181
Wen Y et al.
Table 1. General Characteristics of Patients from Nine Clinical Trials Included in the Meta-Analysis a
Reference
Cardoso et al. (15)
Maruoka et al. (16)
Backus et al. (17)
Iacobellis et al. (18)
Alfaleh et al. (19)
Di Martino et al. (20)
Morgan et al. (21)
Yamasaki et al. (22)
Wang et al. (23)
Year
Press
Collect Long-Term Type of Treatment Number Non-SVR
Date
Follow up
of Patient
2010
Journal of
Hepatology
1987 2007
Median 35
year
2012
Journal of
Gastroenterology and
Hepatology
1986 2005
9.9 ± 5.3
years
2001 2007
2013
Clinical of
Gastroenterology and
Hepatology
SVR
HCC
Death
SVR: 6,
Non-SVR:
40
SVR: 6,
Non-SVR:
40
GT1:4248, SVR: 223,
GT2:2089, Non-SVR:
GT3:1097
283
SVR: 525,
Non-SVR:
1440
Peg-IFN + RBV, PegIFN, Interferon with
or without RBV
307
204
103
IFN with or without
RBV
577
356
221
Approximately 3.8
years
Peg-IFN + RBV
GT1:12166,
GT2:2904,
GT3:1794
GT1:7918,
GT2:815,
GT3:697
2002 2006
51 ± 18
months
Peg-IFN + RBV
75
51
24
SVR: 5,
NonSVR: 11
SVR: 2,
Non-SVR:
23
Liver international
2001 2012
63.8 ± 32.8
months
Peg-IFN with or
without RBV
157
95
62
SVR: 0,
Non-SVR: 8
2011
Journal of viral hepatitis
1994 2001
Median 59
months
All
368
125
59
SVR: 0,
NonSVR: 4
2010
Hepatology
2000 2003
Median 3.5
years
Peg-IFN + RBV
1145
386
140
2012
BMC Gastroenterology
1992 2011
Median 11.5 IFN with or without
years
RBV
351
80
72
2013
Hepatology
International
None
138
27
111
2011
2011
Clinical of
Gastroenterology and
Hepatology
Median 8
years
Peg-IFN + RBV
a Abbreviations: HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; and SVR, sustain virologic response.
Table 2. Deeply Analysis of Baseline Factors of Gender, Genotype (HCV) and Fibrosis Level a
Study
Morgan et al. (21)
Morisco et al. (24)
Chang et al. (25)
Ferreira Sda et al. (26)
Papastergiou et al. (27)
Trapero-Marugan et al. (28)
SVR: 10,
Non-SVR:
74
SVR: 1,
NonSVR: 8
SVR: 0,
Non-SVR: 9
None
SVR: 9,
Non-SVR:
16
SVR: 2,
Non-SVR:
33
SVR: 4,
Non-SVR:
75
SVR: 15,
NonSVR: 6
None
Age, y b
Male
Female
Follow-up
F0-2/
F3-4
GT1
Non-GT1
SVR
HCC
49.8 ± 8.02
107
33
3.5 years
111
29
101/
39
140
2
47.69
100
50
8.6 years
none
none
none
none
150
2
55.4 ± 9.4
661
610
41.3
months
532
339
321
492
871
37
45.6 ± 10
127
47
47 months
138
28
50
124
174
2
47.3 ± 9.1
87
58
68.8 ± 35
months
95
24
61
84
145
2
47 ± 9
71
82
5 years
140
13
116
37
153
1
a Abbreviations: HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; and SVR, sustain virologic response.
b Values are presented as mean ± SD.
3.3. SVR Versus Non-SVR
3.3.1. Reduced Risk of all-Cause Mortality in SVR
The all-cause mortality between patients with HCV
who attained SVR and non-SVR in the long-term followup was examined (15-22). Due to Wang et al. (23) did not
involve all-cause mortality data, so did not include this
group. A significant homogeneity was found among the
Hepat Mon. 2015;15(5):e27181
SVR: 5,
Non-SVR:
80
included studies in this meta-analysis (χ2 = 3.69, df = 5 (P
= 0.59), I2 = 0%). Data was pooled from studies with RR
= 0.16, 95% CI = [0.10-0.25] to assess the risk of all-cause
mortality. It was concluded that SVR reduced about 84%
risk of all-cause mortality than non-SVR (Figure 2).
3.3.2. Reduced Risk of HCC in SVR
The studies (15-21, 23) included for assessing the risk
of HCC showed a good homogeneity (χ2 = 7.27, df = 5 (P
3
Wen Y et al.
< 0.20); I2 = 31% ＜ 50%). Through pooled analysis of included studies with RR = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.23 - 0.58], it was
concluded that SVR might be a protective factor against
HCC (Figure 3). SVR reduced about 63% risk of HCC compared with non-SVR patients.
3.4. The Deeply Meta-Analysis
Although patients who attained SVR had low risk of
HCC, HCC could still occur. The deeply analysis aimed
to discover whether the baseline characteristics of patients who attained SVR would be a factor for HCC risk.
As seen in Table 2, we supposed gender, genotype (HCV)
and fibrosis level as factors for HCC risk of SVR patients.
All studies (I2 =0) showed well homogeneity after the
heterogeneity test. Although pooled RRs of gender and
genotype shown in parts A and B of Figure 4 were respectively 1.76 and 1.67, their 95% CI contained 1. Gender and
genotype might not play significant role in the risk of
HCC in patients who attained SVR. However, pooled RR
of fibrosis level was 0.09, while the 95% CI [0.04, 0.19]. It
means that patients who achieved SVR might have a high
risk of HCC, if they had advanced liver fibrosis before the
treatment.
Figure 2. Risk of All-Cause Mortality Between SVR And non-SVR
The heterogeneity of the studies was tested using χ2 test and I2 statistic. If a significant heterogeneity (χ2 test, P < 0.10) was found, the random-effect
model was used in the analysis, and if the heterogeneity was not significant (χ2 test, P ≥ 0.10), the fixed-effect model was used. Studies with substantial
heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 50%) are not suitable for meta-analysis.
Figure 3. Risk of HCC Between SVR and non-SVR
The heterogeneity of the studies was tested using χ2 test and I2 statistic. If a significant heterogeneity (the χ2 square test P < 0.10) was found, the randomeffect model was used in the analysis, and if the heterogeneity was not significant (χ2 test, P ≥ 0.10), the fixed-effect model was used. Studies with substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 50%) are not suitable for meta-analysis.
4
Hepat Mon. 2015;15(5):e27181
Wen Y et al.
Figure 4. Baseline Factors of Gender, Genotype (HCV) and Fibrosis Level and HCC Risk
The heterogeneity of the studies was tested using χ2 test and I2 statistic. If significant heterogeneity (χ2 test, P < 0.10) was found, the random-effect model
was used in the analysis, and if the heterogeneity was not significant (χ2 test, P ≥ 0.10), the fixed-effect model was used. Studies with substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 50%) are not suitable for meta-analysis.
4. Conclusions
Qu et al. (29) demonstrated that the incidence of HCC
was significantly lower in IFN-treated than untreated
patients with HCV infection. The long-term prognosis of
treated patients who got different curative effect had less
been studied. This meta-analysis was designed to confirm the benefit of SVR in the long-term prognosis and
to make sure whether the baseline factors before treatment could affect the incidence of HCC in patients who
achieved SVR. The results of the present meta-analysis
indicated that patients infected with HCV who attained
SVR had an 85% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (RR
= 0.15, 95% CI = [0.10-0.24]). In addition, patients with SVR
could have 63% reduced risk of HCC (RR = 0.37 95% CI =
[0.23-0.58]) than non-SVR patients. Although, SVR would
be regarded as a sign of clinical cure and with reduced
Hepat Mon. 2015;15(5):e27181
risk of HCC for patients with SVR, HCC might be unavoidable to all patients with CHC. A previous study results
suggested that patients with CHC who had no evidence
of virological relapse might still have the risk of HCC (27).
The mechanism of HCC development in patients with
SVR is elusive. HCC development is not directly related
to HCV replication. The incidence of HCC may have some
association with hepatic regeneration and hepatocyte cycling that occurs after antiviral therapy and may activate
the cellular pathways leading to dysplasia and thereby increasing the risk of HCC (30). The results of our research
were consistent with Morgan et al. (31) that SVR was a
protective factor in the incidence of HCC. However, SVR
patients with a risk factor for the occurrence of HCC were
unknown. We tried to find that which baseline status
before treatment would affect HCC risk in patients who
achieved SVR. Interestingly, the liver fibrosis stage might
5
Wen Y et al.
be the most important attributing factor. Patients who had
a mild fibrosis before treatment might have 91% reduced
risk of HCC (RR = 0.09, 95% CI = [0.04-0.19]) compared to
patients with CHC who had advanced fibrosis (especially
cirrhosis) before treatment, while all patients attained
SVR at last. The reason might be explained by the fact that
liver fibrosis staging would actually represent the degree
of liver damage and accordingly the higher stage of liver
fibrosis would represent more serious liver damage. Based
on the results of this meta-analysis, the authors concluded
that earlier treatment, especially before the development
of advanced liver fibrosis, would benefit more for patients
with CHC. As we see, the benefit of SVR for CHC patients was
apparent, which would reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and HCC. Even, some studies indicated that SVR would
reduce the risk of relapse in HCV infected transplant patients (32). However, patients achieved SVR still need longtime follow-up, especially some who already had advanced
fibrosis before treatment, because of HCC risk. The above
told us two things: Firstly, screening HCV is important,
especially in some developing countries, hepatitis superinfections were widely in high-risk populations (33). Early
treatment would avoid fibrosis development, which indicated better long-time prognosis. Secondly, liver fibrosis
must be detected for all HCV patients. Percutaneous liver
biopsy with ultrasonography is a quick, effective and safe
procedure (34), while noninvasive tests such as fibro-scan
and fibro-test, could provide live fibrosis information as
baseline. The present meta-analysis had some potential
limitations. Firstly, the final results of this meta-analysis
are greatly affected by limitations of the included publications. Secondly, as the numbers of literatures included in
this meta-analysis are small, predicators for patients with
or without an SVR on all-cause mortality and the incidence
of HCC may not be accurate. Thirdly, there are differences
in antiviral therapy using IFN and PEG-IFN with or without RBV that may lead to different effects on long-term
outcomes. This may have biased the meta-analysis results.
Fourthly, due to the limited available literature, gender,
degree of fibrosis and genotypes were selected to evaluate
SVR achievement and these parameters could not comprehensively conclude the baseline factors. This meta-analysis
clearly demonstrated that SVR was a protective factor for
HCV patients against HCC and all-cause death. For HCV patients, advanced fibrosis status before treatment, might
increase HCC risk even in patients who achieved SVR. The
earlier treatment for patients with CHC, the better longterm prognosis.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the Pro. Cuimei Liu, PhD Xiaoyu
Fu, for their advices to our work.
References
1.
2.
6
A new direction for hepatitis C. Lancet. 2014;383(9925):1270.
Lavanchy D. Evolving epidemiology of hepatitis C virus. Clin Mi-
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
crobiol Infect. 2011;17(2):107–15.
Lavanchy D. The global burden of hepatitis C. . Liver international
: official journal of the International Association for the Study of the
Liver. 2009;29(Suppl 1):74–81.
Farci P. Choo QL, Kuo G, Weiner AJ, Overby LR, Bradley DW, Houghton M. Isolation of a cDNA clone derived from a blood-borne
non-A, non-B viral hepatitis genome [Science 1989;244:359-362].
J Hepatol. 2002;36(5):582–5.
Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR, Smith C, Marinos G, Goncales
FJ, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis
C virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(13):975–82.
Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC, Rustgi VK, Shiffman
M, Reindollar R, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin
compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial
treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomised trial. Lancet.
2001;358(9286):958–65.
Alavi Moghaddam M, Zali MR, Aalaei Andabili SH, Derakhshan F,
Miri SM, Alavian SM. High Rate of Virological Response to Peginterferon alpha-2a-Ribavirin Among Non-Cirrhotic Iranian Hemophilia Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C. Iran Red Crescent Med J.
2012;14(8):466–9.
Sikorska K, Romanowski T, Stalke P, Izycka Swieszewska E,
Bielawski KP. Association of hepcidin mRNA expression with
hepatocyte iron accumulation and effects of antiviral therapy in
chronic hepatitis C infection. Hepat Mon. 2014;14(11):e21184.
Mi Y, Gao YT, Jiao XL, Guo H, Liu T, Jing L, et al. The role of interleukin-28b gene polymorphisms in chinese patients with chronic
hepatitis C treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Hepat Mon. 2014;14(8):e18793.
Sargolzaee Aval F, Behnaz N, Raoufy MR, Alavian SM. Predicting the outcomes of combination therapy in patients with
chronic hepatitis C using artificial neural network. Hepat Mon.
2014;14(6):e17028.
George SL, Bacon BR, Brunt EM, Mihindukulasuriya KL, Hoffmann J, Di Bisceglie AM. Clinical, virologic, histologic, and biochemical outcomes after successful HCV therapy: a 5-year followup of 150 patients. Hepatology. 2009;49(3):729–38.
Maylin S, Martinot-Peignoux M, Moucari R, Boyer N, Ripault MP,
Cazals-Hatem D, et al. Eradication of hepatitis C virus in patients
successfully treated for chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology.
2008;135(3):821–9.
Di Bisceglie AM, Shiffman ML, Everson GT, Lindsay KL, Everhart JE,
Wright EC, et al. Prolonged therapy of advanced chronic hepatitis
C with low-dose peginterferon. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(23):2429–41.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie
D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology:
a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies
in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.
Cardoso AC, Moucari R, Figueiredo-Mendes C, Ripault MP, Giuily
N, Castelnau C, et al. Impact of peginterferon and ribavirin therapy on hepatocellular carcinoma: incidence and survival in hepatitis C patients with advanced fibrosis. J Hepatol. 2010;52(5):652–7.
Maruoka D, Imazeki F, Arai M, Kanda T, Fujiwara K, Yokosuka O.
Long-term cohort study of chronic hepatitis C according to interferon efficacy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(2):291–9.
Backus LI, Boothroyd DB, Phillips BR, Belperio P, Halloran J, Mole
LA. A sustained virologic response reduces risk of all-cause mortality in patients with hepatitis C. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2011;9(6):509–516 e1.
Iacobellis A, Perri F, Valvano MR, Caruso N, Niro GA, Andriulli
A. Long-term outcome after antiviral therapy of patients with
hepatitis C virus infection and decompensated cirrhosis. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(3):249–53.
Alfaleh FZ, Alswat K, Helmy A, Al-hamoudi W, El-sharkawy M,
Omar M, et al. The natural history and long-term outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 4 after interferon-based
therapy. Liver Int. 2013;33(6):871–83.
Di Martino V, Crouzet J, Hillon P, Thevenot T, Minello A, Monnet E.
Long-term outcome of chronic hepatitis C in a population-based
cohort and impact of antiviral therapy: a propensity-adjusted
analysis. J Viral Hepat. 2011;18(7):493–505.
Morgan TR, Ghany MG, Kim HY, Snow KK, Shiffman ML, De
Hepat Mon. 2015;15(5):e27181
Wen Y et al.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Santo JL, et al. Outcome of sustained virological responders
with histologically advanced chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology.
2010;52(3):833–44.
Yamasaki K, Tomohiro M, Nagao Y, Sata M, Shimoda T, Hirase K,
et al. Effects and outcomes of interferon treatment in Japanese
hepatitis C patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:139.
Wang CH, Chang KK, Lin RC, Kuo JJ. Insights into hepatocellular
carcinoma occurrence and long-term outcomes in patients with
chronic hepatitis C infection after successful antiviral treatment. Hepatol Int. 2013;7:S367.
Morisco F, Granata R, Stroffolini T, Guarino M, Donnarumma L, Gaeta L, et al. Sustained virological response: a milestone in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(18):2793–8.
Chang KC, Hung CH, Lu SN, Wang JH, Lee CM, Chen CH, et al. A
novel predictive score for hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis C after sustained response to pegylated interferon and ribavirin combination therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(11):2766–72.
Ferreira Sda C, Carneiro Mde V, Souza FF, Teixeira AC, Villanova
MG, Figueiredo JF, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with
chronic hepatitis C with sustained virologic response to interferon. Braz J Infect Dis. 2010;14(4):330–4.
Papastergiou V, Stampori M, Lisgos P, Pselas C, Prodromidou K,
Karatapanis S. Durability of a sustained virological response, late
clinical sequelae, and long-term changes in aspartate aminotransferase to the platelet ratio index after successful treatment
with peginterferon/ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C: a prospective study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(7):798–805.
Hepat Mon. 2015;15(5):e27181
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Trapero-Marugan M, Mendoza J, Chaparro M, Gonzalez-Moreno
L, Moreno-Monteagudo JA, Borque MJ, et al. Long-term outcome
of chronic hepatitis C patients with sustained virological response to peginterferon plus ribavirin. World J Gastroenterol.
2011;17(4):493–8.
Qu LS, Chen H, Kuai XL, Xu ZF, Jin F, Zhou GX. Effects of interferon
therapy on development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C-related cirrhosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hepatol Res. 2012;42(8):782–9.
Hung CH, Lee CM, Lu SN, Wang JH, Hu TH, Tung HD, et al. Longterm effect of interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin therapy on incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C
virus-related cirrhosis. J Viral Hepat. 2006;13(6):409–14.
Morgan RL, Baack B, Smith BD, Yartel A, Pitasi M, Falck-Ytter Y.
Eradication of hepatitis C virus infection and the development
of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational
studies. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5 Pt 1):329–37.
Behzadi MA, Ziyaeyan M. Hepatitis C Virus Load in Seropositive
Liver and Kidney Transplant Recipients by Quantitative RealTime PCR Before and After Transplantation. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2013;6(8):e7365.
Karimi Elizee P, Alavian SM, Miri SM, Behnava B, Alavian SH, Keshvari M, et al. The Seroprevalence of Entrically Transmitted Viral
Hepatitis in HCV Infected Thalassemia and Hemophilia Patients
in Iran. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2013;6(7):e9091.
Cakmakci E, Caliskan KC, Tabakci ON, Tahtabasi M, Karpat Z. Percutaneous liver biopsies guided with ultrasonography: a case
series. Iran J Radiol. 2013;10(3):182–4.
7